To be able to make better use of my 17-40 I want to add a FF camera to my kit in the future. I could save up for something like a 5D Mark II, but the original 5D is becoming quite cheap when bought second hand, even in stores that sell used items. I noticed one that according to the description should be good as new and comes complete with the box and a second battery for 579 euros. A 5D Mark II will cost around double, but since I have a load of other items (Gitzo tripod + head, the 100/2.8 L IS USM, a 24-105/4 L IS USM and a bunch of filters and those sort of things) that I want to buy, I am guessing I could very well use the price difference on those other "wants" as well.

So: how good will an original 5D be nowadays? I want to have a FF to be able to shoot things like very wide landscapes (it makes my 17-40 a lot wider than on my 7D and I don't really want to buy an EF-S 10-22 to get a wider view) and for action I will still use my 7D.

If you use the forum search you may find an old post of mine when I looked at the 5D compared to the 50D I also had at the time. In short, the 5D is showing its age so you have to be sure why you want the bigger sensor. It makes fast primes come alive, if you don't need micro-focus adjust. There's no live view either, and max ISO is really low by today's standards. The 5D2 of course doesn't suffer any of those. In my opinion, unless you plan on using fast primes or zooms, the incremental benefit over crop is diminished. Personally I wouldn't suggest a 5D if all you want/can do at the moment is go wider with a 17-40L. A 10mm zoom for crop would be better value.

Edit: forgot to look at your gear list before replying... the 70-200 would be really interesting on full frame, but again focus would need to be spot on, and the 5D doesn't have focus adjust. I don't know how much Canon would charge to do that out of warranty if needed.

So it is wiser to just wait a bit longer and buy a 5D Mark II a little later. That's also fine with me, just didn't want to miss a good alternative for a low price . I am afraid I might need some micro adjusting (especially my 100-400 was a bit off on my 7D) so better not take that chance. Thanks popo!

Thank you kendrikwiley. I was already convinced the 5D (MII or MIII) will be the best way to go. Leaning towards the MII at the moment, but that's only because of the big price difference. It is kinda obvious that the MIII is my preferred camera, but it is just so damn expensive .

I can understand that you want to go full frame as soon as possible looking at your selection of lenses. But if it were me, I'd rather save up for a year or so and get the mark 3. I think it's such a was improvement over the mark 2. Much better noise performance, 100% viewfinder, dual card slots and most importantly the new AF system.

Especially coming from a 7D I think you would miss it very much. I'm not sure, but I think the mark 2 has the same AF system as the 40D? I've had a 40D for some time and loved it very much, but it doesn't compare to the 7D. The 7D with 17-55 IS USM is the best autofocusing experience I've ever had.

Thanks Woor. It might just be the case that a 5D Mark IV will be there at the time that I am ready to buy a new FF camera, and it might as well be a 5D Mark III then. My idea for buying a Mark II is purely as an addition to my 7D. The crop factor of the 7D is ideal for wildlife photography, since it increases my 100-400 to a 640mm lens. The 5D Mark II would be purely for landscapes, portraits and all sorts of photography where I don't need the awesome AF of a 7D or 5D Mark III. But I do agree that the Mark III is an incredible improvement over the Mark II and should be a camera to consider even though it is a lot more expensive.

The III compared to the II, and such comparisons, always make me wonder: how perfect could a camera be? A minute before the 5D III was announced, it was discussed if the III could be any better than the II. The II was king, remember? Now there' s the III and 6D (which isnt any better IMHO) and of course some Nikons, but do they make the II worse?No, the II's still the king, but it's only the best compared to 99% of the other cameras, instead of 100%. It still has very, very low noise images, high DR, a great LCD, v/f, movie mode, Micro AF Adj. and before we forget: it's lovely IQ for its price! For such reasons I bought the 50D over the 7D and 60D, back then. The 50D isn't bad, the 5D II isn't bad, there's just better bodies. The 5D II is quite an improvement over the 5D Classic though! I think you will miss some features if you would go 5D Classic (I would'nt, to be fair), unless you don't shoot in the darkest scenes and use PASM with RAW all the time. I know you would go with the II though

Hehe well, to be perfectly honest, if I ever have enough cash to buy whatever I want then of course it will be the best (in this case the III). But since I don't really see that happening (with a baby on the way ) I think I will probably dream about buying a III for a year or so, and end up buying a Mark II because I just couldn't wait any longer lol . And like I said: there is still some other stuff I want to buy, like 2 lenses, a good tripod with two heads (a ball and a swing), an external flash, filters, etc etc.

I held out for a good deal on a 5d Mk2, once the Mk 3 came out.Was able to pick one up with low shutter count and excellent condition for my budget.Complements my 17-40mm and my 70-200mm f/4.Amazing for landscape work and the larger sensor is just what I had hope for.